C.L.I.M. Leather Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. v. The Executive Officer (In charge)Anakaputhur MunicipalityChennai – 600 070....

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated :: 07..08..2012Coram ::The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DhanapalanWrit Petition No: 2697 of 2012C.L.I.M. Leather Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.13/23 Mettur StreetAnakaputhurChennai – 600 070.... Petitioner-vs-The Executive Officer (In charge)Anakaputhur MunicipalityChennai – 600 070.... Respondent.. .. ..Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the recordspertaining to proceedings of the respondent in Na. Ka. No:788/2011/T.A. and to quash the orders dated 20.01.2012 (two) passedby the respondent under the provision of the Tamil Nadu DistrictMunicipalities Act and under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act. For petitioner:: Mr. K. ChandrasekaranFor respondent:: Ms. V.M. Velumani Special Govt. PleaderO R D E RWhat is challenged in this writ petition are the two noticesdated 20.01.2012 one issued under Sections 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 (M) and134 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and another issuedunder Sections 249, 250 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu DistrictMunicipalities Act, 1920. By the said notices, petitioner wasdirected to stop work in his leather factory and submit a report tothe concerned authorities failing which action would be initiatedbefore the appropriate forum under the relevant provisions of theAct. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing on 06.02.2012,this Court granted an order of status quo which has been periodicallyextended upto 14.03.2012 and thereafter, it has not been extended. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in themanufacture and sale of leather money purse, hand bags, travel bagsand suit cases. The process involves purchase of readymade processedleather which is thereafter cut to suitable sizes and stitched intofinished products using stitching and related instruments. For thesaid purpuse, a small scale unit is set up at the leasehold premisesat No: 13/23, Mettur Street, Anakaputhur, Chennai – 600 070, assufficiently skilled man power is available in that area. Petitionerapplied for license under Section 249 of the Municipalities Act fromthe respondent Municipality on 22.08.2011 with requisite details. Byits letter dated 30.08.2011 the Municipality called upon thepetitioner to submits the building drawing plan, CMDA approval, NoObjection letter from the Public Health Officer and No objectionletter from the Pollution Control Board and Fire Service department.Petitioner claims that it has obtained factory licence from theFactories Inspection Department vide its order dated 25.10.2011.Petitioner sought for some time by its letter dt. 11.11.2011. ThePollution Control Board, in its letter dated 09.12.2011 stated thatas the unit is located in a mixed residential area, it would considerpetitioner's request after the Municipality grants license.According to the petitioner, the present impugned notices dated20.01.2012 directing to "stop work" is issued without regard to thefact that petitioner's application for licence is pendingconsideration with the Municipality and that there was not priornotice issued by the respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The respondent has filed counter stating that the petitioneris running the leather factory in the address as mentioned in theaffidavit, whereas it has failed to get the permission for the samefrom this respondent office and when it was legally questioned by theauthorities he has come forward with such bald and baselessallegations by filing the present writ petition. There were numerouscomplaints from neighbours and also upon personal inspectionconducted by the authorities in the month of July 2011, it was foundthat the leather factory is run by the petitioner in a large scale byusing high tech machineries by utilizing excess HP of electricitywhich involves human risk and also strictly prohibited in both theresidential as well as the mixed residential zone. It was also foundthat the petitioners' factory is being run without obtainingpermission from the respondent office and also by not following thebasic norms and therefore, petitioner was asked to stop work and getprior permission from the respondent office before commencing workagain. Petitioner submitted its application on 22.08.2011 forpermission which was returned through the respondent's letter dated30.08.2011 prescribing the essential requirements to be complied withand approval to be obtained from various departments within sevendays thereof. Petitioner vide its letter dated 05.09.2011 sought forthirty days time which was granted. As there was no response fromthe petitioner even after expiry of the period of 30 days, therespondent caused a show cause notice dated 01.11.2011. Petitioneronce again, vide letter dated 11.11.2011, sought for 45 days time. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This was also granted. Even after the expiry of the said period,since the petitioner has not come up with the requisite approval fromthe various other departments, the respondent caused the finalnotices dated 20.01.2012 asking the petitioner to stop work.According to the respondent, the allegation of the petitioner thatits application is pending for consideration before the Municipalityis incorrect as the said application had been returned to thepetitioner along with its letter dated 30.08.2011. Thus, therespondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On the above background and pleadings, I have heard thelearned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in themanufacture and sale of leather money purse, hand bags, travel bagsand suit cases. The process of manufacture involves purchase ofreadymade processed leather which is thereafter cut to suitable sizesand stitched into finished products using stitching and relatedinstruments. Petitioner has set up a small scale unit at theleasehold premises at No: 13/23, Mettur Street, Anakaputhur, Chennai– 600 070, by obtaining factory licence from the FactoriesInspection Department vide its order dated 25.10.2011. Petitionerapplied for license under Section 249 of the Municipalities Act fromthe respondent Municipality on 22.08.2011 with requisite details. Byits letter dated 30.08.2011 the Municipality called upon thepetitioner to submits the building drawing plan, CMDA approval, NoObjection letter from the Public Health Officer and No objectionletter from the Pollution Control Board and Fire Service department.Petitioner sought for some time by its letter dt. 11.11.2011. ThePollution Control Board, in its letter dated 09.12.2011 stated thatas the unit is located in a mixed residential area, it would considerpetitioner's request after the Municipality grants license.According to the respondent, petitioner's application dated22.08.2011 was returned through the respondent's letter dated30.08.2011 prescribing the essential requirements to be complied withand approval to be obtained from various departments within sevendays thereof. Petitioner first sought 30 days time and sought for45 days thereafter. According to the respondent, inspite of grant ofsuch time limits, petitioner was unable to comply with the requireddetails and re-submit his application and therefore, the finalnotices dated 20.01.2012 asking the petitioner to stop work came tobe issued. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a re-course adopted by the respondent cannot be faulted with as thepetitioner has not complied with any of the requirements and,therefore, both the notices issued by the respondent under Sections89, 90, 91, 92, 93 (M) and 134 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public HealthAct, 1939 and another issued under Sections 249, 250 and 313 of theTamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 are in no way infirm andillegal. The respondent had repeatedly asked the petitioner to obtainpermission from all the concerned departments and then run thefactory. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with such acourse adopted by the respondent in issuing notices to stop work https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has consistently pleaded that petitioners' application forapproval is pending with the Pollution Control Board and otherdepartments for consideration and such pendency cannot be put againstthe petitioner. He would also submit that there are certain numberof employees engaged in the factory for quite some time and that inview of the interim order granted by this Court, the factory is inoperation as on date and therefore, petitioner's interest may beprotected by this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking intoconsideration the facts involved in the case, this writ petitionstands disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to re-submit his application to the respondent Municipality, within fourweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, afterobtaining necessary certificates from the concerned departments andif such an application is made, it is for the respondent to considerthe same in accordance with law and on its own merit. It is needlessto state that in case of any failure on the part of the petitioner,it is open to the respondent to follow the due procedure and takeaction against the petitioner in the manner known to law.Considering the hardship and difficulties expressed by thepetitioner, till such time the respondent disposes of thepetitioner's application, the parties are directed to maintain statusquo as on today ( i.e. 07.08.2012). Connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.Sd/-Deputy Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gp https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Executive Officer (In charge)Anakaputhur MunicipalityChennai – 600 070.1 CC To Mr.R.Vijaya kumar, Advocate SR NO.479951 CC To Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate SR NO.47553W.P. No: 2697 of 2012mg[co]gp/8.10